MN - Jacob Wetterling, 11, St. Joseph, 22 Oct 1989 - #9

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
~Laughing to myself, this information just goes round and round.. I said it was far fetched. I figured it wasn't credible. Just thought of it since Sigrun brought up Illinois. Maybe we should all study the threads and answer these same questions over and over. Lol. But sincerely Sigrun has brought new perspective and thank you for that!
 
Sigrun, the real Wisconsin info has been exhauted by police. Apparently, the confession to a therapist was unable to be verified, and according to the timeline, the confessor would have been 12 yrs old. He is now deceased.
 
Was LH in the immediate vicinity when Jacob was abducted?
 
The definition of Conjecture is: a theory or supposition based on insufficient evidence. A second degree conjecture would be a conjecture based on a conjecture. We have some third degree conjectures going on here. It is pointless.

The way conjectures are used in solving a mystery is using available evidence to convert a conjecture into an established Fact.

Sigrun,

You said that Tracker had earlier claimed that the tire tracks next to Jacob's footprints could not belong to a Monte Carlo. If this can be supported, it is a bombshell.


The location of Jacob's footprints next to those tracks would suggest that they belonged to the vehicle used in the abduction. It would be particularly telling if they were located in a "pull of " area.

We know that no one contacted DR that night but they did speak to him the next day and a week later searched the farm. We must assume that all vehicles on the farm were checked and casts made for comparison against the tracks by Jacob's footprints. It would seem to standard police practice to rule all of those vehicles out. Was this actually done? We don't know.

It is curious that so little interest was paid to DR after the crime. Not only as a suspect but as a witness. The fact that his 911 call was deleted suggests that it was not considered at all important and neither of the vehicles he reported seeing were being searched for. Strange.

At this point, all vehicles and tires that might have been a match are long gone. Some vehicles might be ruled out, but that is probably as good as it's going to get. Otherwise, the only avenue avail to solve this case is probably comparison of similar crimes and known pedophiles in the area.
 
kemo said:
The definition of Conjecture is: a theory or supposition based on insufficient evidence. A second degree conjecture would be a conjecture based on a conjecture. We have some third degree conjectures going on here. It is pointless.

The way conjectures are used in solving a mystery is using available evidence to convert a conjecture into an established Fact.

Sigrun,

You said that Tracker had earlier claimed that the tire tracks next to Jacob's footprints could not belong to a Monte Carlo. If this can be supported, it is a bombshell.

The location of Jacob's footprints next to those tracks would suggest that they belonged to the vehicle used in the abduction. It would be particularly telling if they were located in a "pull of " area.
Click to expand...

It's great to see someone following the argumentation. Yes, you can tell yourself, you don't need Tracker. If you look at the picture showing JEW's last impression, there is a tire track directly by his foot. Mentally place JEW's foot along that track and ask yourself how wide that tire was? It is noticeably, even to the novice, noticeably narrower than a modern belted tire. It cannot come from a Grand Prix. I think you meant "Grand Prix" not "Monte Carlo"? Anyway, and yes, indeed, the orientation of JEW's foot with respect to that print shows the improbability of it happening that way by chance. And this is reinforced more by some help perhaps from Tracker to show that these prints are of the same age. They were laid within minutes of each other. The odds of that happening in that configuration only minutes apart, and JEW NOT having boarded that car, are unrealistic at best.

No other tracks were found because whatever came up there (like Kevin's car) stayed on the packed gravel. And we know that because the only fresh prints were those of our suspect prints.

JEW's scent also vanished when his footprint vanished. The combination of those two facts, and the orientation of the entire scene, yielding a scenario of NOT getting in a car pushes the odds to incredulity that this was produced any other way.

What has still not been understood, apparently, is that this is a gravel dirt mixed road in which tires compress the tire "tracks" that run down the middle. So if you drive off of them it is quite noticeable. Moreover, tracks don't tend to take in those packed areas. It's only in soft areas where they take. And that is precisely why we have JEW's footprint in the first place. It is in a soft area in the middle of the road. If you look again at these pics it is clear that this car was straddling the packed tracks, which won't happen unless a driver deliberately pulls over. Yes, it is elementary and obvious. Just like the fact that S1 is obviously the same person as the likeness of the composite drawing. It's plain as day.

kemo said:
We know that no one contacted DR that night but they did speak to him the next day and a week later searched the farm. We must assume that all vehicles on the farm were checked and casts made for comparison against the tracks by Jacob's footprints. It would seem to standard police practice to rule all of those vehicles out. Was this actually done? We don't know.

It is curious that so little interest was paid to DR after the crime. Not only as a suspect but as a witness. The fact that his 911 call was deleted suggests that it was not considered at all important and neither of the vehicles he reported seeing were being searched for. Strange.
Click to expand...

Me, too. But I think it might have been because it was a small town and he was privileged. I could be totally wrong about that, but that's how it looks from here.

kemo said:
At this point, all vehicles and tires that might have been a match are long gone. Some vehicles might be ruled out, but that is probably as good as it's going to get. Otherwise, the only avenue avail to solve this case is probably comparison of similar crimes and known pedophiles in the area.
Click to expand...

We differ here, as I think that there is plenty of evidence to tell us a lot. It's not an issue of lack of information, it's a deficit of putting fact together logically, imo.

~ svh
 
Originally Posted by kemo View Post
"The definition of Conjecture is: a theory or supposition based on insufficient evidence. A second degree conjecture would be a conjecture based on a conjecture. We have some third degree conjectures going on here. It is pointless"


Websters definition of brainstorming: a group problem-solving technique that involves the spontaneous contribution of ideas from all members of the group ; also : the mulling over of ideas by one or more individuals in an attempt to devise or find a solution to a problem

This is what I thought we were doing here.
 
Before we can begin to track JEW’s movements, we need to prepare our transition into the next phase of this narrative. We have some loose ends, literally, at the end the point of our last narrative. We noted that S1 and S2 colluded, taking the victim to a rare vehicle, lifted him up to or on top of it from inside or on top of the vehicle, while S1 continued to walk on the packed gravel and dirt.

The problem with this last phase of the narrative is that it leaves us in a bad place to enter the next phase of the narrative. We have two pieces of evidence that remain unexplained. A good fit must explain all evidence in front of us. The first unexplained evidence is why S1 chose to walk the packed gravel rather than simply hopping in the car himself? Doesn’t that seem an intuitively simpler conclusion? But we know from the footprints he didn’t do this. Why?

The second piece of unexplained evidence is why was S1 selected as the snatcher and S2 selected as the get-away driver? While this might seem innocuous, it typically is not a flip of the coin but is calculated on some reasoning, however imperfect. For whatever reason, it was determined that S1 would be the snatcher and S2 the driver. Why?

In order to solve this riddle, and as always, we seek the narrative consisting of the fewest number of assumptions that will fully explain the evidence before us. As it stands, we have two full assumptions; one to explain why S1 walked and the other to explain why S1 was the snatcher and S2 the driver. We assume the most favorable arrangement possible, that is, only two full assumptions, whatever they might be (we could use 40 assumptions, but we seek the fewest always). Is there a way to collapse these 2 full assumptions into 1 or 2 weak assumptions, or maybe 1 weak assumption? The answer is yes.

We have already indicated that the tire tracks suggest a rare vehicle. We can make a weak assumption that the vehicle is an agricultural vehicle that seats no more than one adult and child and that requires special skills to operate. This addresses both issues with a single, weak assumption. But we get something free out of it, also. If S2 is the operator, S2 is likely the owner or operator of the equipment. We’ve identified the driver, S2, as most likely the resident of that property. We don’t need to know the exact kind of agricultural equipment, but investigators should seek one that lays two tire tracks (not 4) of tires of the same diameter, has an open top or no top, has high clearance requiring the lifting of a child and is a relatively low powered vehicle (not greater than 40 HP, its noise signature being the reason for its selection). It likely will not have tail lights and may not be lawful for use on the roadway. It will likely not be a tractor or trailer, or any combination thereof. Persons familiar with agriculture in MN could add to this discussion.

But this also suggests that we do not overtly position a true get-away car in this narrative. For if S1 departed the property, it would presumably be in a vehicle then parked in one of the structures near the house. Next I'll attempt to examine the presenting psychology of flight, or any indications of it, to see what it might tell us of the urgency to continue flight beyond the S2 property itself.

~ svh
 
Once again:

  • We do not sleuth people who have not been named by LE as suspects or POI's.
  • We do not link to social networking pages of people who have not been named by LE as suspects. The few exceptions are victims' pages, LE and MSM pages. Other exceptions have to be mod-approved.
  • We do not link to a social networking page unless we are 100% certain it belongs to the suspect/victim.
  • We never post the name of a private individual, minor or adult, who has not been named in the media. Even then, unless s/he's a major player, initials should be used in place of full names.
  • Questions about the rules or mod decisions should be addressed to a mod in a pm.
  • If you see a post that violates TOS, please do not quote it. Alert the post ASAP so a mod can handle the problem.
Rules Etiquette & Information - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


 
Sigrun said:
Before we can begin to track JEW’s movements, we need to prepare our transition into the next phase of this narrative. We have some loose ends, literally, at the end the point of our last narrative. We noted that S1 and S2 colluded, taking the victim to a rare vehicle, lifted him up to or on top of it from inside or on top of the vehicle, while S1 continued to walk on the packed gravel and dirt.

The problem with this last phase of the narrative is that it leaves us in a bad place to enter the next phase of the narrative. We have two pieces of evidence that remain unexplained. A good fit must explain all evidence in front of us. The first unexplained evidence is why S1 chose to walk the packed gravel rather than simply hopping in the car himself? Doesn’t that seem an intuitively simpler conclusion? But we know from the footprints he didn’t do this. Why?

The second piece of unexplained evidence is why was S1 selected as the snatcher and S2 selected as the get-away driver? While this might seem innocuous, it typically is not a flip of the coin but is calculated on some reasoning, however imperfect. For whatever reason, it was determined that S1 would be the snatcher and S2 the driver. Why?

In order to solve this riddle, and as always, we seek the narrative consisting of the fewest number of assumptions that will fully explain the evidence before us. As it stands, we have two full assumptions; one to explain why S1 walked and the other to explain why S1 was the snatcher and S2 the driver. We assume the most favorable arrangement possible, that is, only two full assumptions, whatever they might be (we could use 40 assumptions, but we seek the fewest always). Is there a way to collapse these 2 full assumptions into 1 or 2 weak assumptions, or maybe 1 weak assumption? The answer is yes.

We have already indicated that the tire tracks suggest a rare vehicle. We can make a weak assumption that the vehicle is an agricultural vehicle that seats no more than one adult and child and that requires special skills to operate. This addresses both issues with a single, weak assumption. But we get something free out of it, also. If S2 is the operator, S2 is likely the owner or operator of the equipment. We’ve identified the driver, S2, as most likely the resident of that property. We don’t need to know the exact kind of agricultural equipment, but investigators should seek one that lays two tire tracks (not 4) of tires of the same diameter, has an open top or no top, has high clearance requiring the lifting of a child and is a relatively low powered vehicle (not greater than 40 HP, its noise signature being the reason for its selection). It likely will not have tail lights and may not be lawful for use on the roadway. It will likely not be a tractor or trailer, or any combination thereof. Persons familiar with agriculture in MN could add to this discussion.

But this also suggests that we do not overtly position a true get-away car in this narrative. For if S1 departed the property, it would presumably be in a vehicle then parked in one of the structures near the house. Next I'll attempt to examine the presenting psychology of flight, or any indications of it, to see what it might tell us of the urgency to continue flight beyond the S2 property itself.

~ svh
Click to expand...

If S1 had concealed his car in a barn or some other outbuilding to conceal the fact that he was at the house visiting DR (perhaps from DR's brother) for a few days, I can see using the farm equipment to transport JEW to S1's car, allowing time for S1 to run ahead, start the car, back out and transfer JEW to his vehicle. I think this could be done in a matter of seconds or 1 to 2 minutes.
 
Pic of DR woodpile is on fb under KR. Check the comments. Pile is a lot larger and taller these days.
 
cindya said:
If S1 had concealed his car in a barn or some other outbuilding to conceal the fact that he was at the house visiting DR (perhaps from DR's brother) for a few days, I can see using the farm equipment to transport JEW to S1's car, allowing time for S1 to run ahead, start the car, back out and transfer JEW to his vehicle. I think this could be done in a matter of seconds or 1 to 2 minutes.
Click to expand...

It seems natural that S1 would be the snatcher due to Axis II aggressive personality and for S2 to be the driver as he knows how to operate the farm equipment.
 
cindya said:
If S1 had concealed his car in a barn or some other outbuilding to conceal the fact that he was at the house visiting DR (perhaps from DR's brother) for a few days, I can see using the farm equipment to transport JEW to S1's car, allowing time for S1 to run ahead, start the car, back out and transfer JEW to his vehicle. I think this could be done in a matter of seconds or 1 to 2 minutes.
Click to expand...

I was thinking a similar scenario and it places S1 in his own car only needing to pick up his "purchase" and whatever else he wanted to take. The clown outfit can come off as he nears the barn. I'm strangely comfortable with this. So far, this is the simplest scenario. But are we sure that is the psychology going on between these two? Could be. Going to think some more ;) ...
~ svh
 
cindya said:
If S1 had concealed his car in a barn or some other outbuilding to conceal the fact that he was at the house visiting DR (perhaps from DR's brother) for a few days, I can see using the farm equipment to transport JEW to S1's car, allowing time for S1 to run ahead, start the car, back out and transfer JEW to his vehicle. I think this could be done in a matter of seconds or 1 to 2 minutes.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, some of this is sounding a little crazy to me. IMO, this was a crime of opportunity with very little time between abduction and LE on the scene. Some of these scenarios currently being talked would be almost impossible to pull off without prior planning and within this small window of time.

I don't believe this crime is complicated. Someone was in the right place at the right time and took advantage of their situation. They also got lucky with the missteps by LE.

Poor Jacob...I have an 11-year old son and my heart aches for him and his family. :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 174 more.
Total: 2,544 (members: 175, guests: 2,369)

Online statistics

Members online
175
Guests online
2,369
Total visitors
2,544
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,111
Messages
18,103,836
Members
230,990
Latest member
MollyKM
Back
Top